Even beyond that, perhaps the Zion crowd produce even MORE "power" than the regular matrix folk (sheep). However, they need to be placed in the "Zion Matrix" to realize their potential.
I don't think it would apply. The REAL world would operate under a completely separate set of rules setup up by a FAR MORE powerful creator.
I didn't make the "Unreal Zion" jump immediately, but after examining the facts, it seems like the only real possibility. The most telling fact is that Agent Smith can LIVE inside the ZIONITE he infected in "The Real World".
The idea of a computer program written for a silicon-based CPU running INSIDE the head of a human is just a bit dumber than the "human-heat power generation" idea. Furthermore, the idea of actually PHYSICALLY rebuilding Zion five times over just writing a program also seems a bit absurd. It's VERY obvious that they could have wipe out Zion ANY time they liked.
The idea as I take it, is that humans don't produce enough power when they aren't stimulated properly. The simulation is to keep their power output at peek capacity.
I had proposed the idea that the humans could be Pentiums instead of batteries. It's not a bad way to get around the "battery" plot device. They programs weren't lying, they were misunderstood. They said power, the humans assumed they meant electricity not processing power on which they run (that 80% of the brain that you never use (95% for MTV viewers)).
I think the ultimate gist of all this "simulated existence" stuff boils down to the nature of creation.
Assuming that we all are living in a simulation, does it really matter?????
Creation, or Nature, is bounded by a set of rules that describe matter, energy and how it interacts. The actual perception of things is an abstraction produced by our own minds. We know now that what our eyes percieve as solid matter is 99.999% empty space. Rules regarding the interaction of matter gives us or perceptions of solids and the macro things that we generally interact with.
If we are indeed simulations in god's PhD thesis project to produce AI, does it really matter??? We perceive reality, we are bounded by it. Perhaps God is a four-dimensional being who wanted to investigate how 3d-dimensional life might operate the same way we ponder "flatland". The actual "realness" of that world would be beyond our comprehension (we are bounded by our "reality") as would 3-d land to the flatlanders.
Ultimately, I would propose that the answers to these questions DOESN'T MATTER. We are what we are. But, pondering the nature of existence is VERY important. And even desirable. I know that if I was a programmed a simulation, I would be very pleased if my SIMS became smart enough to rise above the nature of their own existence. If they started disbelieving my burning bush avatars as hokey tricks with the depth of children's fables, I would be proud.
Perhaps the "Abberation" is an intelligence arisen from chaos that can simply see through the nature of existence. Comprehend the totality of the rules instead of just witnessing it's artifacts. It dissmisses those who perpetuate "the system", priests, CEOs, department of homeland security (uhh I digress) as perverters of truth who mostly try to indoctrinate us into their heards of "acceptors" while wearing the deceiptful, self-serving frocks of guidance.
Truth and Fact are found in investigation and rebellion. Our leaders in that movement aren't the Thomas Aquinas' or Joan of Arc's, it's the Galileo's, the Newtons, the Einstein's. Those brilliant people whose minds were so erratic that they couldn't accept the reality as proposed by authority, they could only seek the world that was.
Thus here is the Messianic message of Neo, of Brian(Monty Python), Buddah, Muhammed and if you read carefully (don't listen to your preacher), Jesus himself. "Consider authority, deal with it, respect it, interact with it, use within it which is good, even grudingly live with it, but ultimately you must THINK FOR YOURSELF!!!!!".
For all the barren wasteland that Antartica is, it has 100 times the natural resources as the moon. When corporations start colonizing Antarctica, I'll believe in the economic feasability of a moon colony.
Why would you EVER consider manufacturing something ON the moon.
So, build the modules on earth, launch them on a Saturn-V-esque rocket, land them on the moon. Assemble the components and THEN launch them into lunar orbit???????
How about build the modules, launch them and assemble them in Low Earth Orbit. It's really a LOT cheaper.
The best you could hope for on the moon is to mine fuel.
The shuttle system was NASA's way of justifying a manned space program. Those little "washing machines" didn't look too much like Star Trek and didn't really inspire confidence in the whole concept.
The tragedy is they let a more economical solution (SkyLab) fall out of orbit for "lack of funds". Yes, the capsules were "disposable" but maintaining a "re-usable" system turns out to be a LOT more expensive.
Basically, the shuttle is a skylab that they launch and land. It's far cheaper just to leave most of it in orbit and shuttle the astronauts (and experiments) back in forth instead of the platform.
NASA is HAS TO change direction. The shuttle system is proving impossibly complex. Lose one shuttle and you lose 1/4 of your space capacity.
What the Russians accomplished with Mir/Soyuz on a shoestring budget is remarkable. They really had the correct approach from the start.
Hopefully, NASA will embrace innovative and (cheaper) lauch concepts like carrying space planes into the middle/upper atmosphere on launcher planes (B-52s). It's not sexy, it doesn't get ratings OR attention, but neither does the shuttle anymore (except when it blows up).
The single BEST potential technology to make space travel even REMOTELY economical is the space elevator concept. Orbit is a FAR more practical place to operate then the moon is.
The best possible use for the moon is a colony of robots to mine fuel for inter-planetary vehicles. Their too, a space elevator would be the cheapest (and safest) way to get from the surface and into orbit.
A moonshot is just more investment in a OVERLY EXPENSIVE, infeasible technology. Build a space-elevator, and I'll be VERY impressed.
Yeah, but the irony is we SQUASHED a LOT of democracy in MANY places along the way for fear that they would cooperate with the soviets.
America used to have a two tier freedom policy. Freedom for us, US subjugation via proxies for most others (those others consisted mainly of non-whites).
Hopefully, the current president has chosen NOT to pursue our previous course. They seem awefully keen to micro-manage Iraq.
Yeah, but I could give away MILLIONS of toothbrushes here on earth for the cost of just ONE in space. I'm sure that more than one person will brush with it as opposed to trading it for an ounce of EverClear.
Mao Tze Dungs achievements really aren't that hard to top.
He pretty much "peaked" with the revolution.
China's system is pretty much rigged to benefit the auto-crats and their chronies. If they're so confident in their "progress" they should hold elections and see what the people think.
Actually, terminal velocity EVERYWHERE is C, at least according to Einstein it is.
There are some tricky physicists who have gotten photons to travel faster than C. The experiment HAS been repeated, but they haven't worked out the physics yet.
In any case, if you could get a 50kg asteroid up to speeds NEAR C, there would be no Earth left after the collision.
ON principal, I agree with you. But remember that their trajectory had a LOT to do with the nature of re-entry pattern. Apollo capsules intentionally hit the atmosphere in such a way to MAXIMIZE it's braking power and MINIMIZE the amount of heat produced.
An object with a VERY STEEP entry angle would suffer higher temperatures but get through the atmoshpere MUCH QUICKER.
The really big hits are produced by solar orbiting objects travelling in a vastly different orbit then the Earth (Comets for example). That, or they're just REALLY, REALLY big.
Trying to drive giant asteroid from earth orbit into the earth AND hit your target AND make a big enough boom would be a very TALL order. The gravity of the earth isn't enough.
To produce a BIG BANG, you would be better off finding rocks in the asteroid belt and using solar sales to pull them into an earth colliding orbit. Of course in that case, aim is a bit of a question. You'd better have some control over the projectiles velocity as it approached Earth.
It would be a bitch to hit Beijing instead of New York.
A sufficient countermeasure would be an orbiting micro-nuke programmed to hit just ONE target in the remarkably unlikely scenario that any of the things described would actually happen. Actually it would take A LOT LESS to annihalate as the lack of a pressurization tends to KILL EVERYBODY!!!!
The orbiting nuke would cost about as much as a space probe as opposed to the trillions that a moon base would cost.
Actually, a nuclear weapon depends on the shock-wave generated by super-heated air for it's "mass-desctruction" properties. Anything short of a near-direct hit would do very little to a rock in space beyond giving it a really nice sun-burn.
Better to intercept, attach, deploy a solar sail to slow it down a bit, and send it home to China.
Actually, if you slowed it down correctly, you could make it hit China instead.
This is of course assuming that they could develop the technology in the first place. The ability to intercept and re-direct and asteroid has ZILCH to with the technology needed to colonize the moon.
It could all be done cheaper and safer right here on planet EARTH!!!!
The US Navy is the undisputed king of the seas and the master of underwater warfare. The subs in question would be destroyed as soon as they opened their missle doors.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't tell this to Stephen Covey. He might drop into a infinite loop saying that he can CHOOSE not to believe the obvious. :-)
Ahhh,
.... issue.
But what if OUR go is the result of a SIM created in a SIM that WE create (sometime in the future)?????
Wouldn't that be perfectly wonerful paradox???
It would certainly solve that whole, "who created god, and his god, and
Already been done ...
Except, they write info-mercials instead books. The pills aren't always red. And they're almost always filled with something either
1) Less effective than sugar.
2) Far more dangerous.
Let's thank Newt Gingrich for endorsing an industry of liars and thieves (The Supplement Biz) by hamstringing the FDA.
Even beyond that, perhaps the Zion crowd produce even MORE "power" than the regular matrix folk (sheep). However, they need to be placed in the "Zion Matrix" to realize their potential.
WOW,
A very nice Asimov-ian perspective. They cannot finish of the humans because their primary directive PREVENTS them from harming humans.
I don't think it would apply. The REAL world would operate under a completely separate set of rules setup up by a FAR MORE powerful creator.
I didn't make the "Unreal Zion" jump immediately, but after examining the facts, it seems like the only real possibility. The most telling fact is that Agent Smith can LIVE inside the ZIONITE he infected in "The Real World".
The idea of a computer program written for a silicon-based CPU running INSIDE the head of a human is just a bit dumber than the "human-heat power generation" idea. Furthermore, the idea of actually PHYSICALLY rebuilding Zion five times over just writing a program also seems a bit absurd. It's VERY obvious that they could have wipe out Zion ANY time they liked.
Ahhhh,
:-)
So, if Morpheus existed in our world, he would work at Radio Shack, or maybe Best Buy
The idea as I take it, is that humans don't produce enough power when they aren't stimulated properly. The simulation is to keep their power output at peek capacity.
I had proposed the idea that the humans could be Pentiums instead of batteries. It's not a bad way to get around the "battery" plot device. They programs weren't lying, they were misunderstood. They said power, the humans assumed they meant electricity not processing power on which they run (that 80% of the brain that you never use (95% for MTV viewers)).
I think the ultimate gist of all this "simulated existence" stuff boils down to the nature of creation.
Assuming that we all are living in a simulation, does it really matter?????
Creation, or Nature, is bounded by a set of rules that describe matter, energy and how it interacts. The actual perception of things is an abstraction produced by our own minds. We know now that what our eyes percieve as solid matter is 99.999% empty space. Rules regarding the interaction of matter gives us or perceptions of solids and the macro things that we generally interact with.
If we are indeed simulations in god's PhD thesis project to produce AI, does it really matter??? We perceive reality, we are bounded by it. Perhaps God is a four-dimensional being who wanted to investigate how 3d-dimensional life might operate the same way we ponder "flatland". The actual "realness" of that world would be beyond our comprehension (we are bounded by our "reality") as would 3-d land to the flatlanders.
Ultimately, I would propose that the answers to these questions DOESN'T MATTER. We are what we are. But, pondering the nature of existence is VERY important. And even desirable. I know that if I was a programmed a simulation, I would be very pleased if my SIMS became smart enough to rise above the nature of their own existence. If they started disbelieving my burning bush avatars as hokey tricks with the depth of children's fables, I would be proud.
Perhaps the "Abberation" is an intelligence arisen from chaos that can simply see through the nature of existence. Comprehend the totality of the rules instead of just witnessing it's artifacts. It dissmisses those who perpetuate "the system", priests, CEOs, department of homeland security (uhh I digress) as perverters of truth who mostly try to indoctrinate us into their heards of "acceptors" while wearing the deceiptful, self-serving frocks of guidance.
Truth and Fact are found in investigation and rebellion. Our leaders in that movement aren't the Thomas Aquinas' or Joan of Arc's, it's the Galileo's, the Newtons, the Einstein's. Those brilliant people whose minds were so erratic that they couldn't accept the reality as proposed by authority, they could only seek the world that was.
Thus here is the Messianic message of Neo, of Brian(Monty Python), Buddah, Muhammed and if you read carefully (don't listen to your preacher), Jesus himself. "Consider authority, deal with it, respect it, interact with it, use within it which is good, even grudingly live with it, but ultimately you must THINK FOR YOURSELF!!!!!".
Seriously, have you ever SEEN Dr. Strangeglove????
.... It's all explained there.
Space-Gap, Missle-Gap, The-Gap
Check you later P.O.E.
For all the barren wasteland that Antartica is, it has 100 times the natural resources as the moon. When corporations start colonizing Antarctica, I'll believe in the economic feasability of a moon colony.
Why would you EVER consider manufacturing something ON the moon.
So, build the modules on earth, launch them on a Saturn-V-esque rocket, land them on the moon. Assemble the components and THEN launch them into lunar orbit???????
How about build the modules, launch them and assemble them in Low Earth Orbit. It's really a LOT cheaper.
The best you could hope for on the moon is to mine fuel.
The shuttle system was NASA's way of justifying a manned space program. Those little "washing machines" didn't look too much like Star Trek and didn't really inspire confidence in the whole concept.
The tragedy is they let a more economical solution (SkyLab) fall out of orbit for "lack of funds". Yes, the capsules were "disposable" but maintaining a "re-usable" system turns out to be a LOT more expensive.
Basically, the shuttle is a skylab that they launch and land. It's far cheaper just to leave most of it in orbit and shuttle the astronauts (and experiments) back in forth instead of the platform.
NASA is HAS TO change direction. The shuttle system is proving impossibly complex. Lose one shuttle and you lose 1/4 of your space capacity.
What the Russians accomplished with Mir/Soyuz on a shoestring budget is remarkable. They really had the correct approach from the start.
Hopefully, NASA will embrace innovative and (cheaper) lauch concepts like carrying space planes into the middle/upper atmosphere on launcher planes (B-52s). It's not sexy, it doesn't get ratings OR attention, but neither does the shuttle anymore (except when it blows up).
The single BEST potential technology to make space travel even REMOTELY economical is the space elevator concept. Orbit is a FAR more practical place to operate then the moon is.
The best possible use for the moon is a colony of robots to mine fuel for inter-planetary vehicles. Their too, a space elevator would be the cheapest (and safest) way to get from the surface and into orbit.
A moonshot is just more investment in a OVERLY EXPENSIVE, infeasible technology. Build a space-elevator, and I'll be VERY impressed.
BS. Television is our most popular diversion. Just like Rome's was the Colliseum. The diversion is AWAY from the war, not towards it. :-)
Yeah, but the irony is we SQUASHED a LOT of democracy in MANY places along the way for fear that they would cooperate with the soviets.
America used to have a two tier freedom policy. Freedom for us, US subjugation via proxies for most others (those others consisted mainly of non-whites).
Hopefully, the current president has chosen NOT to pursue our previous course. They seem awefully keen to micro-manage Iraq.
Yeah, but I could give away MILLIONS of toothbrushes here on earth for the cost of just ONE in space. I'm sure that more than one person will brush with it as opposed to trading it for an ounce of EverClear.
Mao Tze Dungs achievements really aren't that hard to top.
He pretty much "peaked" with the revolution.
China's system is pretty much rigged to benefit the auto-crats and their chronies. If they're so confident in their "progress" they should hold elections and see what the people think.
Actually, terminal velocity EVERYWHERE is C, at least according to Einstein it is.
There are some tricky physicists who have gotten photons to travel faster than C. The experiment HAS been repeated, but they haven't worked out the physics yet.
In any case, if you could get a 50kg asteroid up to speeds NEAR C, there would be no Earth left after the collision.
ON principal, I agree with you. But remember that their trajectory had a LOT to do with the nature of re-entry pattern. Apollo capsules intentionally hit the atmosphere in such a way to MAXIMIZE it's braking power and MINIMIZE the amount of heat produced.
An object with a VERY STEEP entry angle would suffer higher temperatures but get through the atmoshpere MUCH QUICKER.
The really big hits are produced by solar orbiting objects travelling in a vastly different orbit then the Earth (Comets for example). That, or they're just REALLY, REALLY big.
Trying to drive giant asteroid from earth orbit into the earth AND hit your target AND make a big enough boom would be a very TALL order. The gravity of the earth isn't enough.
To produce a BIG BANG, you would be better off finding rocks in the asteroid belt and using solar sales to pull them into an earth colliding orbit. Of course in that case, aim is a bit of a question. You'd better have some control over the projectiles velocity as it approached Earth.
It would be a bitch to hit Beijing instead of New York.
A sufficient countermeasure would be an orbiting micro-nuke programmed to hit just ONE target in the remarkably unlikely scenario that any of the things described would actually happen. Actually it would take A LOT LESS to annihalate as the lack of a pressurization tends to KILL EVERYBODY!!!!
The orbiting nuke would cost about as much as a space probe as opposed to the trillions that a moon base would cost.
Actually, a nuclear weapon depends on the shock-wave generated by super-heated air for it's "mass-desctruction" properties. Anything short of a near-direct hit would do very little to a rock in space beyond giving it a really nice sun-burn.
Better to intercept, attach, deploy a solar sail to slow it down a bit, and send it home to China.
Actually, if you slowed it down correctly, you could make it hit China instead.
This is of course assuming that they could develop the technology in the first place. The ability to intercept and re-direct and asteroid has ZILCH to with the technology needed to colonize the moon.
It could all be done cheaper and safer right here on planet EARTH!!!!
Yeah, like their lunar base could survive without rice shipments from China.
The US Navy is the undisputed king of the seas and the master of underwater warfare. The subs in question would be destroyed as soon as they opened their missle doors.